|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CA: Ninth Circuit Overturns ruling on Second Amendment Waiting Periods
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On 14 December, 2016, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court ruling in Silvester v. Harris. In the original decision, the District Court ruled that requiring a gun owner who had already passed a background check, and who either already owned a registered gun or had a concealed carry permit, to wait an additional period to receive another firearm, was an infringement on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth Circuit held that a 10 day waiting period was a “reasonable safety precaution”. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(12/16/2016)
|
| Or an 'unreasonable' death sentence for women getting out of violent relationships. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
